Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.

In some communities, there may be more than one grain of truth to this.

In an interview with Mark Hemingway, Dirk Benedict (yes, the original Starbuck) made this point about the challenge of raising boys - yours and others.

Benedict says his third book is going to be about raising his two sons in a cultural climate where men aren’t really allowed to be men.

“Even up in Montana I’ve spent the last 20 years defending the right of my boys to throw a frickin’ snowball, to climb a tree, to jump off a little cliff, to go out in the canoe off my dock without a life jacket,” he says. “All the little boys that refused to give into that were put on Ritalin. The future warriors of America are all on Ritalin in the second grade.”

"I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end," President Barack Obama on Friday moved to fulfill the defining promise of his campaign, saying all U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn by the end of August 2010.

But in the same speech before Marines and military leadership here, he announced that the vast majority of those involved in the pullout will not leave this year.

...and the rest of the story.

And even after the drawdown, a sizable U.S. force of 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq under a new mission of training, civilian protection and counterterrorism.

I guess it depends on the definitions of "war" and "combat," but there will be a lot going on after 10AUG10 if we need to - and there will be combat unless everyone is ordered to be a FOBit - CT will require combat - full stop.

As a side note: calendar based planning is a recipe for disaster - I am more of a conditions based guy; but there is no reason to panic - let's see how it goes.

On 11 November, South Dakota, as part of TF 16, sortied from Noumea for Guadalcanal. On 13 November, she joined battleship Washington (BB-56) and destroyers Preston (DD-379), Walke (DD-418), Benham (DD-397), and Gwin (DD-433) to form TF 64 under command of Rear Admiral W. A. Lee. The next evening at 2330, the force was operating 50 miles southwest of Guadalcanal when Lee learned that an enemy convoy was coming through the passage off Savo sometime between 0030 and 0230. This was Admiral Kondo's bombardment group consisting of battleship Kirishima; heavy cruisers Takao and Atago; and a destroyer screen.

Admiral Kondo's forces were divided into three sections: the bombardment group; a close screen of cruiser Nagara and six destroyers; and a distant screen of cruiser Sendai and three destroyers in the van of the other forces. A quarter moon assured good visibility. Three ships were visually sighted from the bridge of South Dakota, range 18,100 yards. Washington fired on the leading ship, thought to be a battleship or heavy cruiser; and, a minute later, South Dakota's main battery opened on the ship nearest to her. Both initial salvos started fires on the targets. South Dakota then fired on another target and continued firing until it disappeared from her radar screen. Turret No. 3-firing over her stern and demolishing her own planes in the process-opened on another target and continued firing until the target was thought to sink. Her secondary batteries were firing at eight destroyers close to the shore of Savo Island.

A short lull followed after which radar plot showed four enemy ships, just clear of the left tangent of Savo, approaching from the starboard bow; range 5,800 yards. Searchlights from the second ship in the enemy column illuminated South Dakota. Washington opened with her main battery on the leading, and largest, Japanese ship. South Dakota's secondary batteries put out the lights; and she shifted all batteries to bear on the third ship, believed to be a cruiser, which soon gushed smoke. South Dakota, which had been under fire from at least three of the ships, had taken 42 hits which caused considerable damage. Her radio communications failed; radar plot was demolished; three fire control radars were damaged; there was a fire in her foremast; and she had lost track of Washington. As she was no longer receiving enemy fire and there were no remaining targets, she withdrew; met Washington at a prearranged rendezvous; and proceeded to Noumea. Of the American destroyers, only Gwin returned to port. The other three had been severely damaged early in the engagement. Walke and Preston were sunk. Benham had part of her bow blown off by a torpedo and, while en route to Noumea with the damaged Gwin as her escort, had to be abandoned. Gwin then sank her by gunfire. On the enemy side, hits had been scored on Takao and Atago; Kirishima and destroyer Ayanami, severely damaged by gunfire, were abandoned and scuttled.

UPDATE: Via Kevin, a nice link to the SD memorial in SD on GoogleEarth.

It remains a bit of a mystery as to what type of discussion Holder wants us to have. Does he really want whites and African Americans arguing in coffee shops and loading docks as to why the rate of out-of-wedlock birth rates for African Americans is so high? Does he intend to have college admissions officers candidly discuss the degree to which they employ race-based preferences at elite universities? Probably not.

There is more to quibble with than the specifics of Holder’s language, however. It is apparent from even a cursory review of racial politics in the last few decades that the premise of the speech — that we have not spent enough time or energy dealing with race in this country — is seriously flawed. Indeed, in the name of accounting for our past racial sins and correcting ongoing inequality we have become a country immersed in racial discussion and are awash in race-based preferences in employment, university admissions, and government contracting.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than in the private sector workplace, where this issue is often subsumed under the buzz word of “diversity.” Most Fortune 500 companies have policies, personnel, and resources devoted to instructing and cajoling employees to promote and hire racial minorities. But this goes far beyond merely prohibiting illegal discrimination.

Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, in testimony before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2006 (updated in 2007), observed that the obsession with trying to rebalance the racial composition of American workplaces has consumed private entities for years. He reported:

There is a significant amount of discrimination taking place now in the name of diversity. Eight out of ten business executives said that affirmative-action programs had resulted in them giving jobs and promotions to applicants who were less qualified than others. … HR Magazine reported in 1998 that “executive recruiters confirm that more and more companies are placing orders specifically for females and ethnic minorities.” The Center for Equal Opportunity, too, has found that frequently recruiters brag about their ability to find diversity hires for companies.

We are not talking about perfectly legal and appropriate efforts simply to recruit broadly, prevent bias in the workplace, or root out illegal discrimination. What is at issue here is the institutionalization of efforts – in the name of diversity — to recruit, hire, and promote minority employees who are less qualified than their peers in order to boost numbers of minorities in the workplace. In many large and medium-sized companies, executives are judged and compensated specifically on fulfilling diversity goals, which are thinly disguised quotas based on illegal racial and ethnic preferences. Clegg documents that this is par for the course at major employers including Wal-Mart, Kodak, Cisco Systems, BellSouth, Bank of America, and NBC. These are just a few of the country’s employers which reward and penalize managers based on how they rate in hiring and promoting minorities.

...“diversity” programs exist in part because non-lawyers and even misinformed lawyers have come to believe that discrimination in the name of diversity is acceptable. “The conventional wisdom is that this is okay,” says Clegg. Moreover, once personnel and resources (whole departments in some cases) are devoted to diversity programs, they take on the air of respectability and legitimacy.

So in this regard, Holder may have a point. Perhaps it is time to start talking more about all of this. Employees who observe discrimination masking as diversity would be better served to speak up and not remain mute in the face of diversity indoctrination and policies which reward hiring by race and ethnicity. As Clegg says, employees “shouldn’t accept this. They should complain about it.” Skirting or outright violation of the law for some ill-conceived notion of diversity is, Clegg reminds us, “all bad stuff.” And in these economic times it may in fact have significant adverse consequences for non-minority employees who may not enjoy a plethora of employment or promotional opportunities.

Holder, it seems, may have unintentionally stumbled on a truth lurking in many workplaces in America. Employees, by and large, have passively accepted the institutionalization of “diversity,” which is nothing more than disguised discrimination. They are reluctant to speak up both because of fear of the social confrontation and of potential adverse employment consequences. But they should not be afraid to discuss, protest, and confront racism in the workplace — however it is dressed up.

If more employees begin to do just that as a result of Holder’s speech, it would have contributed (albeit unintentionally) to the further reduction of discrimination in America. And that would be a very good thing indeed.

Read it all. You need to brush up on "best business practices" you know.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

The Pentagon said Wednesday that top military officers and civilians had to sign a letter promising to keep details secret as they work on the military's budget.

Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters that Secretary Robert Gates made the unusual request out of concern for national security. He said the department didn't want any leaks to "unravel" the budget process.

"This is highly sensitive stuff involving programs costing tens of billions of dollars, employing hundreds of thousands of people and go to the heart of national security," he said. "And so he wants this process to be as disciplined and as forthright as possible.

"And he thinks that by having people pledge not to speak out of school, if you will, on these matters while they are a work in progress, that you'll create a climate in which you can ultimately produce a better product, because people can speak candidly with the confidence that it will not be leaked," he said.

Gates remained as secretary under Obama after serving under President Bush, but this year is the first time he is requiring the non-disclosure statements.

I wonder why I never liked puppies until now. I don't know why no one who came before loved puppies too. We all love puppies now.I missed it in the article ... but all senior personnel in all Cabinet positions are having to do this .... right?

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Funny definition of the word, "few."

This is more than a trial balloon - this is a trail Zeppelin.

You have a phone, you have a pen, you have the internet. You need to ensure this Zeppelin never makes altitude.

UPDATE: Via Allah; ahhhh yes. The Speaker of the House was around in '94.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it’s clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

With the Home Ministry looking to procure more boats for uniformed forces under it, Indian defence shipyards are flush with orders for supplying small and medium sized boats.

The Goa Shipyard limited has received an order for 116 boats from the Home Ministry and the shipyard has supplied two boats each of five tonne and 12 tonne class to the Home Ministry, Defence Ministry said in a document listing its achievements in the last year.

Similarly, Kolkata-based Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE) yard has orders for construction of 78 interceptor boats from various Government agencies.

Some of these boats have even been exported to countries such as Maldives and Bhutan.

The Border Security Force under the Home Ministry has its own water-wing and uses it for patrolling riverine areas in the North-east and the Creek area on the western frontier.

For the Navy, the shipyard delivered the Landing Ship Tank INS Kesari and two waterjet fast attack crafts.

The shipyard has signed various MoUs with private sector companies to encourage their partnership with the Public sector.

The Mazgaon dockyards is also undertaking construction of three stealth frigates, three missile destroyers and six Scorpene submarines under Navy's Project-17, Project 15A and Project 75 respectively.

From The Economist, a very honest and direct view of where it (the British Army) stands - and where almost a decade of war has brought her.

British forces are organised to conduct, at the high end of operations, either one relatively brief “large-scale” war (requiring an army division, or about 30,000 men) or two simultaneous “medium-scale” campaigns (brigade-sized, involving around 4,500 men apiece). In the latter case, one operation could be a long-term peacekeeping mission and the other a short war; they would not both last longer than six months or involve prolonged combat.

But since 2006 Britain has run two protracted and often intensely violent operations. Units routinely breach guidelines designed to give them time to minimise battle stress. The strain on soldiers, says General Sir Richard Dannatt, the army chief, is “unacceptable”. Britain has struggled to maintain two long supply routes, dividing scarce helicopters, engineers and medics. Aircraft are wearing out faster than planned. “The British army is like an engine running without oil. It is still going, but it could seize up at any moment,” argues Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, a think-tank.

These troubles are made worse by a chronic shortage of manpower. On October 1st the trained strength of the British armed forces was 173,270. This is 3.2% below the official requirement, but it understates large gaps in some areas—especially infantry units. Most battalions are 10-20% short of their required numbers; if those deemed unfit to deploy (due to, say, battle injuries) are factored out, they are as much as 42% under strength. So when battalions are preparing for war, they often regroup soldiers from their four scrawny companies into three, and then bolt on a fourth from another unit. To support current operations, the army has cut back training and lowered readiness; instead of having roughly a brigade at high readiness to deal with a crisis, sources say, there is “less than a battle-group” (a 1,500-strong formation).

It isn't just the impact of war - it is years of neglect, and as a guy with a chart fetish - I think the graphs tell a lot of the story; and explain the major problem we have with our allies.

On December 11th the government announced a delay of one or two years in building big new aircraft carriers, and the deferral of a new family of armoured vehicles. Even so, insiders say there is still a £3.7 billion ($5.2 billion) hole in the budget for military equipment over the next four years and procurement costs are still rising. The bill for the 20 biggest weapons projects is now £28 billion, or 12%, over budget.

Heavy spending on kit for the navy and air force leaves little for the army; one source says it will receive less than 10% of all spending on defence equipment between 2003 and 2018. The government notes, however, that better-protected transport vehicles and other things are being rushed in separately using the Treasury’s reserve funds; the force in Afghanistan is now the best-equipped that Britain has fielded (though it still trains with old kit).

How much should Britain spend on defence? At around 2.6% of GDP, its defence budget is high by European standards but below America’s 4% (see chart 2). Defence spending has lagged behind other government expenditure (see chart 3). One general says: “You cannot have a first-division army, navy and air force—and a nuclear deterrent—for £34 billion a year.”

As we move towards a more Euro-socialist model, keep in mind the last graph. Politicians have their priorities, and until the wolf is at their neck - the Left will let its guard dogs starve.

Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders is planning to show his anti-Qu'ran film Fitna to the United States Senate later this week. Mr Wilders was invited to present the film by Jon Kyl, a Republican Senator for Arizona. In an interview with the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, Mr Wilders said he did not expect to encounter any problems during his visit.

The politician was recently refused entry to Great Britain. He had been invited to show the film to the House of Lords, but was denied entry to the country when he landed at Heathrow Airport. Mr Wilders is appealing against the British refusal to prevent him from entering the country.

...and now for the background from, ahem, ..... awwww - I won't spoil it for you.

There are choices a free society can make when confronted with a threat to its security. It can focus on the source of that threat - or it can broadly crack down on the society as a whole.

When you crack down on the society as a whole, you run the danger of destroying that which you have created. Now and then, you read "hug your Constitution" here. This is one of those moments.

In Britain, they are smothered by a political correct ruling class that we can only slightly understand here. They are so frightened that someone may call them racist that they will do anything to avoid even a chance for a false smear.

The Long War with Islam is a case in point. In spite of the fact that the latest form of terrorism to the UK is fairly easy to identify - it isn't being addressed. Like the banning of Geert Wilders, they try to appease in the face of threats of violence by high ranking Muslim subjects of the Queen. The will not protect their police by going after those to voice violence .... so what do they do? They attack the freedoms that Islamists want to destroy - doing their job for them.

A new British anti-terrorism law went into effect Monday that could effectively bar photographers from taking pictures of police or military personnel — a move that prompted some 200 photographers to protest outside of Scotland Yard's headquarters.

Although the measure aims to prevent terrorists from taking reconnaissance shots, photographers say it could be misused at a whim to stop any pictures from being taken — especially images involving police abuse and demonstrations.Freelance photographer Jess Hurd said she was stopped by police when photographing a December wedding of Irish travelers. Part of the story was about how the travelers — who often roam from site to site — face harassment from police.

"The police stopped me and ordered me to stop filming them, saying I could be carrying out hostile reconnaissance," Hurd said. "I had no idea what they were talking about until I realized we were vaguely in the vicinity of City Airport."

Britain has come under fire in recent years for several measures that civil liberties groups say erode people's freedoms. In 2005, another law prohibited demonstrations around Parliament.

It is this way that a society slowly surrenders.

Shame on the British people for letting this go on. Shame on us if we let this mindset grow here as well. Make no mistake - there are plenty here who would rather restrain free speech, free press, free association than confront organized, violent Islamists - who are worse than the Branch Davidians and Christian Identity movement - yet aren't treated with the same attention and rule of law.

"We're short of fuel, but we've come this far," he told them. "I'm not turning back now." At 290 miles away from the target, 607 began a shallow descent towards Port Stanley.

Even now they could not be certain where they were. The inflight navigation system gave two different compass readings.

The Radar Officer, Bob Wright, and the Navigator, Gordon Graham, had split the difference. If they were on course, the computer would respond with the information needed for Wright to get the bombs on target but only when the radar was switched on again - seconds before the planned drop.

Simon Baldwin in Waddington had worked out that the bomber should approach low to minimise its 'footprint' and then climb upwards to 8000 or 10,000 feet to try to stay clear of the "kill zone" of the Argentinian defences before unleashing its weaponry.

As Vulcan 607 streaked towards her target, Graham called the mileage before the rapid climb, and Hugh Prior, the electronics officer, made sure that the chaff and decoy flares, which would be fired to draw enemy fire, and the American Dash 10 detection jammer were operational.

A radar contact appeared: 607 was dead on target. It was 4.30 in the morning, local time, when the Vulcan roared upwards, straight into view of the Argentine search radars. But the young radar operators were unperturbed. The bomber could only be one of theirs - this had not been a shooting war so far.

During the few minutes it took the Argentinians to wake up to the fact that this was in fact an enemy aircraft, the Vulcan had soared to its 10,000ft altitude and levelled off for the bomb run.

Its speed was 400 mph. From this moment the aircraft could not deviate, even if enemy radar was locked on them. At this height the runway would have been the size of a scratch of a fingernail on the map and the bomb run had to be precise to a few yards.

Two miles from the runway the first of the thousand-pounders fell away from the Vulcan's cavernous belly. When all 21 were away, Withers turned the Vulcan in a steep curve, in time for the crew to see a blossom of fire as the first bomb bored deep into the centre of the runway and detonated. Other blasts hit the airfield, gouging out massive chunks of its surface.

Vulcan 607 did, in fact, have enough fuel to make the rendezvous. It returned to Ascension Island and a heroes' welcome. The most ambitious sortie since World War II, had by the skin of its teeth been successful.

The damage destroyed any remaining hopes Argentine forces had of using the runway for their fast jets. Their entire Mirage fighter force had to be moved promptly back to the north of Argentina, and any jet cover during the coming British invasion would have to come from the mainland.

It shook Argentine morale to the core and provoked Galtieri's decision to order a naval offensive against the British Task Force, which had disastrous consequences for the Argentine Navy.

The V-bomber had been designed decades before to reach into the snowy wastes of Soviet Russia, but had never been used in anger. Their last outing, to a part of the world no one had dreamed they would visit, had finally justified these beautiful aircraft.

The Falklands War lasted just 74 days. Though taken by surprise, Britain launched a task force to retake the islands and after conflict costing 255 British and 649 Argentinian deaths, the Union Jack was hoisted in Port Stanley on June 14.

- If you have (X) jobs that need to be filled at (a) price and you have (X+Y) people wanting that job, then you can probably offer a lower (a-b) or conduct a selective hire at the Y pay scale. This is what happens in good times with high immigration. With both skilled and unskilled workers. Wages are depressed, efficiencies are avoided, and profits are increased to owners/stockholders. The theory also holds that it keeps inflation in check - but if wage growth is kept below inflation - then wages are not the inflationary trigger, and real purchasing power is lost. Often in such situations, workers will incur additional dept than see their purchasing power and standard of living decrease. Sound familiar?

- If however there are only (X-Y) people who want that job, you have to offer a higher (a+b) pay scale in order to attract more interest in that job. That is what happens in a healthy system. Wages tend to keep pace with inflation, and businesses invest in efficiency generating mechanisms via labor substitution technology and processes. Labor efficiencies (AKA productivity) are then spread to the workers through higher wages, and owners through increased share price and/or dividends.

- In a business market in decline, you have negative job creation and wage suppression. Too many people chasing too few if any jobs. Higher trained people take lower paying jobs from lower trained/skilled people. That generates resentment from all. Standards of living fall. The lower skill sets, where most immigrants come into the labor market, are squeezed worse. The expected results take place.

Foreign workers are taking a greater share of British jobs than ever, it emerged last night.They now hold more than 3.8million jobs - 13 per cent of the total. In 1997, when Labour came to power, people born outside the UK held only two million jobs, 7.5 per cent of the workforce.

The figures are an acute embarrassment for Gordon Brown, who was under renewed attack last night over his promise to deliver 'British jobs for British workers'. Tories said there 'cannot be anyone left in Britain' who believes the 2007 pledge.

Most damagingly, two-thirds of the foreign workers were born outside the EU - in countries whose citizens need permits to work here.

The figures were compiled in the wake of angry wildcat strikes across the UK over the number of jobs going to people from overseas.

They were sparked by protests at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire, where Italian and Portuguese workers took all the jobs on a lucrative new contract.

Of course, the anointed will blame the workers calling them all sorts of names and such - doesn't matter if it is accurate or not. Easy for them, as they have nice gov'munt paychecks or are of the higher skill sets that are not impacted by labor surplus and/or layoffs. It isn't easy for some to accept - but it is what it is.

Things look different when you have no job and have to face your wife every morning asking for money for food - and kids who want new shoes - and you feel like someone castrated you over every breakfast. The gov'munt that you voted for to represent you defends others who are not citizens. It gets ugly fast. Always has. The larger the problem - the harder it is to fix. In good times, it isn't that painful to do - if you can avoid the charms of political donors and the fear of being called a racist.

Nativism and attacks against foreigners in times of economic trouble have plauged all cultures throughout history. This should not be a shock to anyone. One would hope that governments would take steps in good times and bad to make sure that the facts on the ground - i.e. uncontrolled immigration and policies that put non-citizens/protected-classes at a level above citizens - do not take root and fester. When you do that - and lie about it - you create situations where the worst tendencies of human nature are fed, find justification, and grow.

...the most important predictor of desertion was socioeconomic and demographic diversity. Ms. Costa and Mr. Kahn approvingly quote Ardant du Picq, a 19th- century French colonel and military theorist.

"Four brave men who do not know each other will not dare to attack a lion. Four less brave, but knowing each other well, sure of their reliability and consequently of mutual aid, will attack resolutely."

As leaders, we should take pause and take that in. Build unity in a non-ethnic context, i.e. we are all American/Sailors/Shipmates - not emphasize difference (DNA of the month club).

If everyone sees themselves as Navy first, DNA somewhere out of mind - how is that bad?

What a putz - when was the last time he had a two way conversation with someone who disagreed with him?

Attorney General Eric Holder described the United States Wednesday as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing awkward racial issues.

In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,” said Holder, nation’s first black attorney general.

Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, Holder said, but “we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”

Can he do it without a knee-jerk call of "racist?" Can I disagree with the Diversity Bullies at an Admiral's Call and not have my career spiked?

The smart money is on "no" to both.

Anyway, we can never get to real conversations because clowns like this keep inventing fake ones.

Whodathunk - another link to the HufPo. S.D. Liddick seems to be making progress, smacking down on one of the poseurs that we have been railing against since '03.

He also sounds like he might be making a turn I made in the '80s as a young'un.

The fact is, men like Shaffir and the sheik you lampooned stood up at a parlous time (for whatever motivations, honorable or venal) and went toe to toe with a baleful brood of characters (foreigners, fanatics, decapitators and the virulently uneducated)--and the people haven't forgotten all that they've given.

Are they criminals? Yes, they are. Should they be scrutinized? Of course. But they're also heroes to many, and widely viewed as the saviors of their small towns and neighborhoods. And, perhaps more importantly, they continue to kill terrorists--men Iraq has listed as Al Quaeda operatives. The fact you, a sniveling coward and ankle-biter hiding preconceived intentions behind putative journalism, are taking pot shots at them appalls me.

Due in part to them, mothers are no longer worried their daughters will be unwillingly pimped out to the unsightly foreign reprobates that came here with criminal networks, in the name of Islam, toting guns and all the vagaries of death. People are building houses (tons of them), sharing chai in neighbor's diwans, and getting down to the brass tacks of figuring out how the hell to rebuild infrastructure that was already neglected and miserably dilapidated before it was bombed to pieces. In a way, Anbar is exactly where it should be upon waking from the nightmare of civil war--fucked up.

The crucial fact is the state of fucked-up is moving in a positive direction and doing it rapidly. Just two years ago, the country's top politicians were worried about making it to work alive. Today, they're setting up anti-corruption networks and guilty politicos are nervously looking over their shoulders, realizing that as the violence drops off, so too does their cover. The people of Anbar are leaving their houses again and the markets are full. I've shopped in them.

The heart of the problem in all of this isn't only with the people of Iraq, it's also with Americans in this age of rapid and uncensored hydra-headed media--and the fact anybody can print anything. The threat there lies in the fact that 80-percent of people in society are grazers (and you can check Chomsky on this, Colonel Malay, or anybody who's served time); non-thinkers that only want to be herded and told what to do. It's those people who read your half-truths online and don't realize you're "independent" for a reason.

I'm phobically allergic to the conservative Republican types the military is rife with, but I've only been in country four months and already I hate liberals. There's plenty of ugliness to report in Iraq (as there are thousands of stories of hope and headway)--and the U.S. military certainly isn't beyond reproach. Nobody's telling you to report on one side or the other. But manipulating the truth because of your own personal biases is wretched and works in the face of progress. The other end of the political spectrum disregards you, Dahr, and now I know why. I thought it was because you're a liar--but you aren't. You don't have enough backbone to be a liar. You're a craven obfuscationist, intent on promoting your agenda at the cost of a menagerie of much braver men and women.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Like I told you - it wasn't Bush's plan - it was the US military's plan; just wanted to get some stink on it.

President Barack Obama on Tuesday signed off on an increase in U.S. forces for the flagging war in Afghanistan.

About 8,000 Marines are expected to go in first, followed by about 9,000 Army troops.

The 17,000 troops will be a down payment on a larger influx of U.S. forces that has been widely expected this year, and it will get a few thousand forces in place in time for the increase in fighting that usually comes with warmer weather and ahead of national midyear elections.

The job of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an exceptionally difficult job that is probably the most lonely of all Commands. Everything you say will be parsed, and with the exception of a the closely held confident, you have to be suspicious of everyone around you and the information that is presented to you; who has what agenda, who is simply telling me what they think I want to hear - who is actually telling me what they know. Is this person working for me, or is he working for himself?

Those are the obvious minefields, but the hidden ones that will get you out of synch easiest. In that exalted position you have to keep a close eye that though your are in DC, you are not of DC. Though you serve the CINC, you also are leading all those in the military below you.

You not only have to manage your relationship with the CINC to maintain your effectiveness and relevancy, but you also have to manage your relationship with your subordinates - from your Deputy to your driver to the Recruit inprocessing.Tightrope doesn't even start to describe it.

In that light, let's look at Admiral Mullen's bit Sunday in the WaPo titled "Building our Best Weapon; Trust." When I first saw that title, I thought he was going to talk about how we recruit, train, employ and grow our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines - but no, he was shooting a little higher than that.

We have learned, after seven years of war, that trust is the coin of the realm -- that building it takes time, losing it takes mere seconds, and maintaining it may be our most important and most difficult objective.

That's why images of prisoner maltreatment at Abu Ghraib still serve as recruiting tools for al-Qaeda. And it's why each civilian casualty for which we are even remotely responsible sets back our efforts to gain the confidence of the Afghan people months, if not years.

It doesn't matter how hard we try to avoid hurting the innocent, and we do try very hard. It doesn't matter how proportional the force we deploy, how precisely we strike. It doesn't even matter if the enemy hides behind civilians. What matters are the death and destruction that result and the expectation that we could have avoided it. In the end, all that matters is that, despite our best efforts, sometimes we take the very lives we are trying to protect.

You cannot defeat an insurgency this way.

I cringed in the beginning - though he backed away from it a bit - when he draped the cloak of Pleminius around the US military. With the talk of counter insurgency, I thought he would at least give a nod to the greatest COIN success in almost half a century; Iraq. But now, the only think we hear is Abu Ghraib which is sad - especially because Abu Ghraib was a case of failed NCO through 1-Star leadership and not an example of official policy, but I gave him a pass as he fired RADM (Ret) Sestak (now Rep. Sestak (D-PA) ) his first day in office as CNO. I'm nice like that.

The thing is - I can't get away from the fact that in a discussion that goes on about counter insurgency, Afghanistan, and a Pakistani-centric view of their grievances (a balm for Sen. Feinstein's (D-CA) joyful moment perhaps) - there is not one other mention of the near-miracle of Iraq. Sure, many have forgotten about it - but over Valentine's Day even the MSM had to write about it.

This victory in Iraq, as it is now, was earned. It was earned and by the lives of thousands of Americans and her allies. Thousands of Iraqis bled for this as well. Yet, the only mention they get is Abu Ghraib? Where is the trust that those who serve put in the hands of those who command them that their sacrifice, if it comes to that, won't be forgotten?One can understand the embarassment of politicians and press - of ranters and pundits when they we so 180deg off from what happened. But from a uniformed leader - it just seems wrong.

It is well known that Admiral Mullen opposed the surge as he wanted to focus on the next war. He was wrong and has come to accept it. I also know that the CINC opposed the surge. He was wrong. The MSM opposed the surge. They were wrong. The CINC mentions Iraq as little as possible for reasons known best to him, as well as the MSM. Why did the CJCS make such and obvious omission? Is this a WaPo editor issue, or is that how it was written?

Admiral Mullen is not a politician. He is not a member of the press. He is the most senior officer in the US Military first and foremost. Isn't there a trust relationship with those in uniform that needs to be cared for and nurtured as well?Shouldn't that trust be primary? Loyalty to the Constitution; trust in those you serve with?

I have read the primary sources about Pleminius. I have also read primary sources about the behavior of the Roman Senate and other military Tribunes at that point in history. Now, if we want to start making comparisons about military and political behavior in the Roman Republic during the Second Punic War with what their counterparts are doing in the 21st Century - then I'm all up for it; but you ain't go'n like it.

I would respectfully offer that there is another quote that the Chairman may want to internalize.

We don't always get it right. But like the early Romans, we strive in the end to make it right. We strive to earn trust. And that makes all the difference.

Though unintentional, the Chairman has insulted everyone who was involved in making Iraq a victory. Especially in light of the discussion of winning and insurgency - they deserve a mention. Even the Brits admit that the American military is the best counter insurgency force - due to a great part because of the turn we made in Iraq.

Two days before on Friday in the WaPo, there was someone who did get it right; Charles Krauthammer. About the Iraqi election, he stated,

Iraq moved away from religious sectarianism toward more secular nationalism. "All the parties that had the words 'Islamic' or 'Arab' in their names lost," noted Middle East expert Amir Taheri. "By contrast, all those that had the words 'Iraq' or 'Iraqi' gained."...All this barely pierced the consciousness of official Washington. After all, it fundamentally contradicts the general establishment/media narrative of Iraq as "fiasco."

One leading conservative thinker had concluded as early as 2004 that democracy in Iraq was "a childish fantasy." Another sneered that the 2005 election that brought Maliki to power was "not an election but a census" -- meaning people voted robotically according to their ethnicity and religious identity. The implication being that these primitives have no conception of democracy, and that trying to build one there is a fool's errand.

What was lacking in all this condescension is what the critics so pride themselves in having -- namely, context. What did they expect in the first elections after 30 years of totalitarian rule that destroyed civil society and systematically annihilated any independent or indigenous leadership? The only communal or social ties remaining after Saddam Hussein were those of ethnicity and sect.

But in the intervening years, while the critics washed their hands of Iraq, it began developing the sinews of civil society: a vibrant free press, a plethora of parties, the habits of negotiation and coalition-building. Reflecting these new realities, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani this time purposely and publicly backed no party, strongly signaling a return -- contra Iran -- to the Iraqi tradition of secular governance.

The big strategic winner here is the United States. The big loser is Iran. The parties Tehran backed are in retreat. The prime minister who staked his career on a strategic cooperation agreement with the United States emerged victorious. Moreover, this realignment from enemy state to emerging democratic ally, unlike Egypt's flip from Soviet to U.S. ally in the 1970s, is not the work of a single autocrat (like Anwar Sadat), but a reflection of national opinion expressed in a democratic election.

Isn't that how a proper counter-insurgency ends? Doesn't that deserve a wee bit of a mention? When discussing trust between peoples, shouldn't we mention that we did not let down the trust of the Iraqis who stayed with us - like we abandoned the millions of Vietnamese, Loatians, and Cambodians that fought with us? Doesn't that story have weight? Isn't the sacrifice of one people to help deliver another from evil something worth recognising; can I even bring up that John 15:13 thingy?

In the Keynesian orgy of spending and New Dealism going on - perhaps we should look back to 1939. From Rep. Dreier (R-CA) via C-Span,

The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, in 1939, as we were tragically headed into the great World War II, and as we were, in large part because of the war, able to emerge from the Great Depression, had an amazing statement that he, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary, at the end of the Great Depression in 1939, in his testimony provided before the House Ways and Means Committee. And in that, and Mr. Speaker, I commend this to my colleagues. He said,

``We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I say, after 8 years of the administration,'' that being the Roosevelt administration, ``we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot.''

What an incredible statement that was made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary in 1939. And the last line, Mr. Speaker, an enormous debt to boot, of course, brings to mind the fact that in 1939, the American people and financial interests in this country were financing that debt.

A railway station has banned kissing after bosses claimed commuters were being delayed by passionate embraces.

Managers put up a ‘No Kissing’ sign, showing two pecking silhouettes within a circle and a red line through them.

It means that romantic farewells, like the one immortalised by Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson in the classic film Brief Encounter, will no longer be seen...Passengers are now prohibited from doing any more than shaking hands while standing in line at the taxi rank outside Warrington Bank Quay Station.

Monday, February 16, 2009

A French submarine was unaware that it had rammed and damaged a British nuclear sub in a mid-Atlantic collision until it was informed by the Royal Navy....The French Navy claimed this month that Le Triomphant’s bow sonar dome was probably damaged in a collision with a submerged shipping container while returning from patrol.

It discovered that it had hit a British submarine only after one of their regular exchanges of information with the Royal Navy.

HMS Vanguard returned to its base in Faslane, western Scotland, on Saturday with dents and scrapes on its hull after the collision that was reported to have occurred on February 3 or 4.

I don't buy it. Frog and Limey 1120s trying to be too clever by half....or they have larger issues to worry about.

BRITISH and French nuclear submarines which collided deep under the Atlantic could have sunk or released deadly radioactivity, it emerged last night.

The Royal Navy’s HMS Vanguard and the French Navy’s Le Triomphant are both nuclear powered and were carrying nuke missiles.

Between them they had around 250 sailors on board.

A senior Navy source said: “The potential consequences are unthinkable. It’s very unlikely there would have been a nuclear explosion.

“But a radioactive leak was a possibility. Worse, we could have lost the crew and warheads. That would have been a national disaster.”...French Navy sources confirm that Le Triomphant, one of four strategic nuclear submarines of the ‘Force de Frappe’ (Strike Force), was returning from a 70-day tour of duty when it collided with HMS Vanguard.

During heavy seas in the middle of the night between February 3 and 4, French sailors heard a loud ‘bang’ that all but destroyed the submarine's sonar dome.

This part of the boat should have detected the Vanguard in the first place, but Le Triomphant’s crew of 101 neither saw or heard anything before the collision.

Between them the submarines had 250 sailors on board.

A senior Navy source told The Sun: 'The potential consequences are unthinkable. It's very unlikely there would have been a nuclear explosion. But a radioactive leak was a possibility. Worse, we could have lost the crew and warheads. That would have been a national disaster.'

As inquiries began, naval sources said it was a million to one unlucky chance both subs were in the same patch of sea.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: 'It is our policy not to comment on submarine operational matters, but we can confirm that the UK’s deterrent capability has remained unaffected at all times and there has been no compromise to nuclear safety.'

The only thing more unlucky would be hitting an unknown mountain or sump'n ..... testimony to the ships and their crew that everyone came home though.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

The present Archbishop of Canterbury needs to step aside and retire to a hairy-hippie commune somewhere and let a better man take his place to help one of the world's most important homes to Christianity become relevant again and recover.

My challenge, then, to the 72 per cent of this nation who marked themselves as 'Christian' in response to the census of 2001 is that if they wish to safeguard that same Christian tradition, they must renew their faith and become actively involved in their local church.

For those who despair at the treatment meted out to these Christian women, the message is clear: wake up, Christian England!

Indeed.

Just short clip of him in a nautical context in Hull speaking at a memorial service for lost trawlermen.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

NRO has been going through the best 25 Conservative movies of the last 25 years, and they have this as #1. I have seen it three times (you must see it in German, English subtitles if necessary) - and it can be argued that it is the best of any stripe in 25 years.

E40 and OMC's wife probably can give a good perspective what it was like to live in the later days of the Warsaw Pact - but if like me you were living in paradise; this is probably as close to seeing it as it was.

The Lives of Others(2007): “I think that this is the best movie I ever saw,” said William F. Buckley Jr. upon leaving the theater (according to his column on the film). The tale, set in East Germany in 1984, is one part romantic drama, one part political thriller. It chronicles life under a totalitarian regime as the Stasi secretly monitors the activities of a playwright who is suspected of harboring doubts about Communism. Critics showered the movie with praise and it won an Oscar for best foreign-language film (it’s in German). More Buckley: “The tension mounts to heart-stopping pitch and I felt the impulse to rush out into the street and drag passersby in to watch the story unfold.”

I wrote about it about a year ago here. I still mourn the loss of Ulrich Mühe - his acting was simply sublime in all his work, and this was his best.

You have to see it - and see it with friends. It is where Leftists will go if they are given the power. These kids and their club have no clue.

For the Salamander family - deployment is over. Maybe I will post a few thing about what I did downrange - maybe I won't. All I know is I am glad to be back. I will gladly trade a weapon everyday for a family dinner every day --- any day.

You know those guys who used to use egg whites and Elmer's Glue as hair product back in the day? As Chap has realized over the years - they and their "Siouxsie Souix in '82" significant others (and their following generations fellow travelers) have thoroughly infiltrated today's military.

The summary from Amazon is fine, but from her blog, I like the Kirkus Review better.

A journalist and ex-stripper marries a career Army officer.

After a chance meeting and whirlwind romance, Burana (Try, 2006, etc.) married Mike, a major in the U.S. Army. Though they were an odd couple—a former exotic dancer who wrote a bestselling book about her adventures (Strip City, 2001) and an all-American hero who devoted his life to the military—Burana willingly joined the sisterhood of women whose husbands serve their country in uniform. She learned what this meant when Mike was deployed to the Middle East as the Iraq War began. She coped with the fear and loneliness that accompany having a loved one in harm’s way. She was awed, and intimidated, by the way other military wives kept home and hearth together. She was confused when Mike returned from duty different. On to West Point, whose arcane rituals and rules, both written and unwritten, Burana describes in hilarious detail. Despite her unorthodox—and what she feared some would see as sordid—past, she found peace among the soldiers and spouses of West Point. Until, following her father’s death, depression hit her like a guided missile. Then the marriage that had sustained her began to suffocate her; the life of an Army spouse that had challenged and bemused, now terrified; and all she wanted was a way out. She left Mike and embarked on a battle to understand the posttraumatic stress that afflicted her and the memories of childhood abuse at the hands of a babysitter that haunted her. Mike learned he could not fix Burana, as was his Army can-do inclination, but could only love her. After many struggles, achingly delineated in beautiful prose, they reconciled and resumed their life at the Academy.Moved by the kindness and understanding other Army wives showed her, Burana determined to repay their kindness. How she did so was appropriately outrageous—and too funny an ending to give away.

Friday, February 13, 2009

A 39-YEAR-OLD man has been charged with lighting a deadly bushfire as well as possessing child pornography.

The suspect, who cannot be named, was charged at Morwell Magistrates' Court with one count of arson causing death and one count of intentionally lighting a bushfire.

First of all - why can he "not be named?" Another moment to hug your Constitution. The press can be a pain; but it is a life saving pain. Basic freedoms; speech, press, religion, self-defense - they are all like that.

A link between terrorism plots and hardcore child pornography is becoming clear after a string of police raids in Britain and across the Continent, an investigation by The Times has discovered. Images of child abuse have been found during Scotland Yard antiterrorism swoops and in big inquiries in Italy and Spain.

Secret coded messages are being embedded into child pornographic images, and paedophile websites are being exploited as a secure way of passing information between terrorists.

AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for "forest jihad" by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.

US intelligence channels earlier this year identified a website calling on Muslims in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to "start forest fires", claiming "scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels' forests when they do the same to our lands".

All should wait for the official ID - but if this turns out to be the "jihad of the trees" we read about earlier .... ungh.Let me help you out with some math. Some reports say these fires have killed 181 people. Australia has a population of ~21 million. The USA has a population of ~303 million. In an American scale - the Australians have had 2,612 people killed. That is just a few hundred under what we lost on 911.

There is some background here that will sound all too familiar to many of us, and it demonstrates well why when you tell Sailors that "Diversity" has nothing to do with quotas or picking people just by their DNA --- they look at you like you just lied to their face.

Need a DIVERSE (gender, race, age) group of 15 Sailors in "NEWLOOKING" uniforms (whether Jerseys or Utilities/Wash Khakis, coveralls not desired) to meet with Time in the following locations:

ONE Sailor on the Flight Deck with XO and two CVW2 officers

THREE Sailors on the Bridge with the CO

THREE Sailors at the Lincoln Bust (outside Deckhouse 3) with the Admiral

THREE Sailors in the Hangar Bay with one officer

THREE Sailors in the Foc'sle with one officer

TWO Sailors in CDC with two Strike Group officers

I have some names provided, and was going with a first-come, first-served roster. Can't do it. Need to screen for diversity.

Please canvas your divisions and provide names to me by COB 1 FEB. They will be on board 3 and 4 FEB. Time TBD.

**Each Sailor/officer is expected to recite one line of the Gettysburgh(sic) Address for a Web-based video.

V/R(redacted)

Diversity - it makes bigots of us all - and orders good, solid Sailors to be bigots despite their natural tendency to be fair to their Shipmates. Note the second bold section - that Sailor wanted to be fair to all, but found out later that he "...can't...".

Why? Who ordered him to discriminate on the basis of "...gender, race, age..." How, after so much blood and treasure and time has been expended in this great Republic to make all men free and equal - that it as become a legal order to discriminate on the basis of something so completely out of control of the individual in question as "...gender, race, age..."